Headlines

Tom Blumer

Missing Breitbart

What Breitbart understood, and what all too many establishment Republicans and even conservatives don’t, is that there is no accommodating the left, and there is no hope of receiving fair treatment from the left-dominated establishment press. The left is hellbent on fundamentally transforming the country into a socialist utopia which has never succeeded anywhere it has been tried, and the press is determined to help them do that. Folks, no matter what you do, they’re going to hate you (and hate is the right word). So you might as well do the right thing and follow your beliefs and principles (John “Plan B” Boehner, please note).

This country now has a government headed by the most radical president in U.S. history, one with the worst economic record since Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal extended the Great Depression by eight years. He nevertheless won reelection largely because his opponent conceded too much ground and wouldn’t fight hard enough for what remained.

Barack Obama and the left believe they have only just begun. Sensible, Constitution-anchored conservatives need to start acting as an army of Breitbarts.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Comments

Breitbart did some pretty good things with his life. But as the joke goes…
See that bridge? I helped build that, but they do not call me bridge builder
See that barn over there? I helped put that barn up, but they do not call me barn builder.
But have sex with one goat…
As far as I am concerned, Breitbart is a pro militant gay rights activist assisting useful idiot and he no longer has any claim to anything great.

Actions and statements are facts…it’s the interpretation of those actions and statements that are subject to interpretation.

If the interpretations are not representative of a persons overall direction concerning a position or goal, etc, that interpretation may be false or biased for some reason.

Mimzey on January 1, 2013 at 9:30 PM

Hence why I call him a useful idiot. No one can know the reason for his stupidity on this issue, but we can know the results. When confronted with the truth about what his actions would cause he attacked conservatives as bigots and haters. That was his goat screwing and for me it is who he is forever.

He took the side of the enemy. He brought the enemy into the gates. He let them run free through the streets. When they were done our side was damaged. Then they discarded his worthless self to the side, mission accomplished. Militant Gay Agenda item enacted.

Breitbart was the smartest guy except for one thing. You never eat a meal prepared by your freaking enemy.

JellyToast on January 1, 2013 at 9:47 PM

He was known to have health problems long before his death. Oe of his blogger friends had a write up about how his hatred of the Media was going to be the death of him, as it aggravated his condition. He was always agitated, caffeinated and this put his body under too much stress.

“Personal morality”? Obama and his bots think it’s moral to tax everyone to the max. If you counter that that’s “immoral”, well…

ddrintn on January 1, 2013 at 9:43 PM

The “morality” of Obama and his bots is not at issue. They are bottom feeding scum who know nothing more than consuming the fruits of other people’s labor. The problem is people who attack the legacy of real heroes like Andrew Breitbart because he favored personal liberty over the moral busybodying of the social “conservatives”.

The real retards of the world are the idiots who conflate government enforcement of their personal religious views with objective morality or conservatism.

fitzfong on January 1, 2013 at 10:01 PM

But I do not.
There is a difference between ignoring to fudge packers or muff divers and having government create a special license for them.
Ignoring them and allowing the population a whole call them bad names to keep them in the closet is the small government side…
Giving them government licenses to practice false marriages is the big government side…

The real retards of the world are the idiots who conflate government enforcement of their personal religious views with objective morality or conservatism.

fitzfong on January 1, 2013 at 10:01 PM

But I do not.
There is a difference between ignoring to fudge packers or muff divers and having government create a special license for them.
Ignoring them and allowing the population a whole call them bad names to keep them in the closet is the small government side…
Giving them government licenses to practice false marriages is the big government side…

You are just stupid enough to imagine it is the other way around.

astonerii on January 1, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Assholeerii, the best part of you was wiped away from your mom’s cellulite riddled thigh.

But I do not.
There is a difference between ignoring to fudge packers or muff divers and having government create a special license for them.
Ignoring them and allowing the population a whole call them bad names to keep them in the closet is the small government side…
Giving them government licenses to practice false marriages is the big government side…

You are just stupid enough to imagine it is the other way around.

astonerii on January 1, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Wow. What a sad, pathetic, intellectually and morally small person you are. It doesn’t take much provocation for your personal animosity towards gay people to bubble to the top. Your hatred for people whose lives have NOTHING to do with your miserable existence trumps any claim you stake to the principles of personal liberty or limited government. You are a passenger every bit as toxic as the garden variety welfare parasite.

But I do not.
There is a difference between ignoring to fudge packers or muff divers and having government create a special license for them.
Ignoring them and allowing the population a whole call them bad names to keep them in the closet is the small government side…
Giving them government licenses to practice false marriages is the big government side…

You are just stupid enough to imagine it is the other way around.

astonerii on January 1, 2013 at 10:04 PM

Well well, I didn’t get past that mod with my first post, so here it is 2.0:

Astonerii’s best parts were wiped away from his mother’s thigh, you ignorant waste of bandwidth.
Andrew Breitbart had more to him under his little pinky toe than you will ever dream of having.

Wow. What a sad, pathetic, intellectually and morally small person you are.

No information, just attacks… who is the sad, pathetic, intellectually and morally small person here? You are.

It doesn’t take much provocation for your personal animosity towards gay people to bubble to the top.

I have no personal animosity against gay people. A gay person is perfectly fine by me as long as they are not practicing the sin they are predisposed to practice.

Your hatred for people whose lives have NOTHING to do with your miserable existence trumps any claim you stake to the principles of personal liberty or limited government.

Absolutely incorrect. The militant gay agenda is the one that attacks personal liberty. It demands that I pay respect to government sanctioned gay relationships. It demands that I lose my first amendment rights of stating my position on gay activities. It is the big government less freedom side of the argument.

You are a passenger every bit as toxic as the garden variety welfare parasite.

You are a passenger every bit as toxic as the garden variety welfare parasite.

fitzfong on January 1, 2013 at 10:19 PM

No, that would be a gay agenda pushers. They demand to get the marriage tax rates for not offering society any benefit, such as the creation of and raising of children. They demand to be granted without merit the title of married. They demand that that others rights are lower than theirs.

Wow. What a sad, pathetic, intellectually and morally small person you are.

Nope, those are simple facts that can be researched and verified. They are real and true. Since you are incapable of determining the difference between opinion and fact you are no longer some worthy of debating.

there is no hope of receiving fair treatment from the left-dominated establishment press

The answer is to destroy the left-dominated establishment press.

Do it the way Breitbart did it. Embarrass them at every turn. Bait them with a little bit of a major story to do what they always do — lie and cover up. And then publish the rest of the story and prove them wrong. Rinse. Repeat.

If you were not just repeating things I would almost imagine maybe you really can tell the difference. You are right, this is my take on things. You might actually be capable of doing determining the difference but are such a jerk that you would pretend not to be able to. Someone who is not willing to debate in good good conscience is also not worthy of debating.

If you were not just repeating things I would almost imagine maybe you really can tell the difference. You are right, this is my take on things. You might actually be capable of doing determining the difference but are such a jerk that you would pretend not to be able to. Someone who is not willing to debate in good good conscience is also not worthy of debating.

astonerii on January 1, 2013 at 10:49 PM

The reason I’m not bothering to reason with you is because you can’t reason a person out of a belief that was not reasoned into in the first place.

Your take on Breitbart is larded with focus bias and opinion, neither of which have much to do with fact.imo.

And in calling them scum on that basis you’re enforcing your OWN moral views.

No. I’m STATING them. Educate yourself on the difference.

Oh, yes it is. When you pine for someone to reform government by cutting it back, you’re forcing your own moral views on others. Happens, in fact, every time a law is passed.

ddrintn on January 1, 2013 at 10:53 PM

No, I’m telling those who wish to force their own moral views on me through the involuntary confiscation of money I earned on my own to PISS OFF. If you or they wish to expand government without my consent, do so on your own dime.

The militant gay agenda is the one that attacks personal liberty. It demands that I pay respect to government sanctioned gay relationships.

Is that so? And in what tangible currency are you to “pay respect”?

I am forced to pay for the people who execute the licenses and perform the CEREMONIES. Where as the small government position is to let them do what they want with their own resources. If they earn respect in the society, the society will voluntarily offer them this.

It demands that I lose my first amendment rights of stating my position on gay activities.

Really? How so?

They are a special protected class already. If I make derogatory statements about their sexual orientation, and then later THEY FORCE me into a physical confrontation, I will be prosecuted under hate crimes. The onus according to the government will be on me.

It is the big government less freedom side of the argument.

That word you keep saying. I don’t think it means what you think it means.

You are asking for MORE government and MORE government action. It means exactly what I think it means. Are you really imagining that you can win THIS point, what a freaking lunatic you are.

They demand to get the marriage tax rates for not offering society any benefit, such as the creation of and raising of children.

And if they did offer society the benefit of raising of children, I’m sure you’d be the first in line to permit that.

Yes I would, but not because I do not like them individually, but because they did not CREATE that life, it has been shown through real research, and not the pre outcome kind that children in gay relationship households have worse general outcomes than those who are are raised in two biological parent homes and worse than heterosexual couple homes.

I have no personal animosity against gay people. A gay person is perfectly fine by me as long as they are not practicing the sin they are predisposed to practice.

What part of “none of your business” do you not understand, Gladys?

fitzfong on January 1, 2013 at 11:26 PM

The part where I am demanded to pay for government assets to be used to perform ceremonies. The part where I am forced to condone their behavior. The part where they have already stated their end goal is to stick it to religious organizations and shove it in their face.

How am I forcing anyone to accept anything? You’re forcing your own moral views on gay marriage on everyone else. And again, what’s the difference between “objective morality” (whatever that is)and “religious morality”?

Uh, no, genius. I have no interest in gay marriage one way or the other. I couldn’t give a s*** whether gay marriage is legalized or not. Apparently this phony “issue” is more important to you than keeping the fruits of your own labor. Weak.

In other words, you’re forcing your own subjective, private moral views on property ownership on everyone.

ddrintn on January 1, 2013 at 11:18 PM

No. If you wish to surrender more of your earnings to the government so that it can misappropriate it, that’s your business. If you need government to wipe your ass, that’s your problem, surrender your own personal liberty and dignity to the fed, but don’t insist that others do the same. I’m not busting my ass at work to expand government’s control over my life, thank you.

I am forced to pay for the people who execute the licenses and perform the CEREMONIES.

Yes, because if only the gays didn’t get married, you wouldn’t be forced to pay for the people who execute the licenses to perform the CEREMONIES.

They are a special protected class already. If I make derogatory statements about their sexual orientation, and then later THEY FORCE me into a physical confrontation, I will be prosecuted under hate crimes. The onus according to the government will be on me.

“THEY FORCE” you into a physical confrontation. Basic training for that army of straw men must be something to endure. Why do I get the impression that “THEY FORCE” loosely translates to “astronereii lacks impulse control and needs an excuse”?

You are asking for MORE government and MORE government action. It means exactly what I think it means. Are you really imagining that you can win THIS point, what a freaking lunatic you are.

No. But being called a lunatic by an imbecile like you is hilarious.

Yes I would, but not because I do not like them individually, but because they did not CREATE that life, it has been shown through real research, and not the pre outcome kind that children in gay relationship households have worse general outcomes than those who are are raised in two biological parent homes and worse than heterosexual couple homes.

Nor do any adoptive parents. Yeah, at this point what you would judge to be “real research” is no doubt highly credible. /

The part where I am demanded to pay for government assets to be used to perform ceremonies. The part where I am forced to condone their behavior. The part where they have already stated their end goal is to stick it to religious organizations and shove it in their face.

Who’s asking you to even acknowledge their “behavior”, forget “forcing” you to “condone their behavior”? Now you’re just making s*** up.

No. If you wish to surrender more of your earnings to the government so that it can misappropriate it, that’s your business. If you need government to wipe your ass, that’s your problem, surrender your own personal liberty and dignity to the fed, but don’t insist that others do the same. I’m not busting my ass at work to expand government’s control over my life, thank you.

fitzfong on January 1, 2013 at 11:46 PM

You do not care about which way the gay marriage thing goes, but you care about your money.
Well, I care about your money too.
millions of gay people married and not creating children are going to be very destructive to your money. They will not have children in the future to pay for their old age. That sir is going to work against reigning in the spending that is going to require bankruptcy for the nation or a massive increase in taxes.

People like you are the reason this nation is in the dire straights it is in.

You argue that you care about your pocketbooks and vote instead for a government that PROMOTES the kind of society that WILL vote to take your money. It is OK to sever the relationship between having children and having a secure future. It is OK to allow easy drive through no fault divorces since people no longer need children to be secure in their old ages. It is OK to abort the future tax payers that would be providing for your government provided secure future. It is OK now since marriage is no longer about the children to allow gays to get married, or just two consenting adults who want to take advantage of the institution in what ever way they can. Who knows what the next OK is.

So far we have 8.8 million “totally disabled” people stealing your paycheck. 55 million old age households stealing your paycheck. 45 million food stamp recipients, countless unemployed, housing, medicaid, solyndra’s and so forth… The reason? An immoral society that you could care less one way or another about.

There are way too many tens of millions of morons like you in this nation. Breitbart was one of them. He imagined a world where immoral people were fiscally conservative. He was a moron.

Uh, no, genius. I have no interest in gay marriage one way or the other. I couldn’t give a s*** whether gay marriage is legalized or not. Apparently this phony “issue” is more important to you than keeping the fruits of your own labor. Weak.

So why are you making it your hobby-horse, genius? And again, what is this “objective morality” of which you speak?

No. If you wish to surrender more of your earnings to the government so that it can misappropriate it, that’s your business.

fitzfong on January 1, 2013 at 11:46 PM

Same thing, genius. One set of “objective morality” says that it’s your duty, whether you like it or not. It’s not YOUR property. And all you can use to oppose it is to enforce your own “objective morality”.

You’re just using a dumbass inconsistent argument in an attempt to cleverly slap at those socons. Fail.